GONZALEZ MELGOZA v. WILKINSON (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-01-22No. No. 15-73126

Summary · law.co

Holding. The petition for review was denied because substantial evidence supported the agency's determination that Gonzalez-Melgoza did not establish the necessary elements for Convention Against Torture protection.

Carlos Gonzalez-Melgoza, a Mexican national, challenged the Board of Immigration Appeals' dismissal of his appeal seeking protection under the Convention Against Torture. He argued he should not be removed to Mexico because he faced a substantial risk of torture. The court reviewed the agency's factual findings to determine whether substantial evidence supported the denial of his claim.

The court found sufficient evidence supporting the agency's decision. Gonzalez-Melgoza failed to demonstrate that torture was more likely than not to occur if he returned to Mexico, and he did not establish that Mexican governmental actors would inflict or consent to such torture. General assertions about violence and crime in Mexico, without specific facts connecting those dangers to his individual circumstances, were inadequate to qualify for relief under the Convention Against Torture.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether applicant proved likelihood of torture by or with acquiescence of Mexican government
Sufficiency of evidence regarding state action required for CAT relief
Whether generalized country conditions constitute particular threat to individual applicant

Procedural posture

A Mexican national petitioned for judicial review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal of an immigration judge's denial of Convention Against Torture relief.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Carlos Gonzalez-Melgoza, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judges decision denying his application for deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agencys factual findings. Garcia-Milian v. Holder, 755 F.3d 1026, 1031 (9th Cir. 2014). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agencys denial of Gonzalez-Melgozas CAT claim because he did not establish that it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See id. at 1033-35 (concluding that petitioner did not establish the necessary state action for CAT relief); Delgado-Ortiz v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1148, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (generalized evidence of violence and crime in Mexico was not particular to the petitioner and insufficient to establish eligibility for CAT relief).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.